Printable View
Speaking of 12 angry men - do you think that a jury of 6 females ,some or all of them mothers, represent GZ peers? And not to stereotype, but do you think that the women will be more against his carrying a gun - even legally - then 6 men? I thought the jury overall was wrongly selected and potentially biased.
Cathy - Once upon a time, back in ye olde ancient days, when I was in college to get my Criminal Justice degree our basic tenent was "you better be damn sure of their guilt in order to even think about convicting". Not very profession for a criminal law class but the idea was that we would rather let a dozen guilty people walk rather than wrongly convict one innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Here's a better explanation for "Beyond A reasonable Doubt" from Wikepedia:Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial.
And why was the jury only SIX people, rather than 12? I've never heard of such a thing. Was this something peculiar to Florida law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
Yes. If Zimmerman had a right to "stand his ground", what about Martin? Did Martin, aware of being stalked by a large man behaving in a suspicious manner, have a right to stand his ground and resort to physical violence to defend himself in a situation in which he considered himself threatened?
yes - assuming GZ did physically threatened him first. And of course that's the whole crux of the trial - was it self defense or was GZ the aggressor physically. And is there enough evidence to prove it... beyond a reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzanne
Both parties, assuming they were not up to anything illegal, had the right to be where they were, going about their business. And both were entitled to defend themselves against aggressors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzanne
You don't get to *initiate* violence though - that's not "standing your ground" or "self-defense", that's "assault and battery". Whoever *initiated* the physical combat surrendered their right to claim "self defense".
I guess that would depend on what "initiated" means - is the threat of imminent violence violence in itself? Is it as simple as saying "I have a gun and I'll use it"? Is pointing a gun or cocking a fist initiating violence?Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Based on what I heard, I think something like this happened. Zimmerman threatened in some way, Martin got the upper hand physically, and then Zimmerman shot Martin.
You know, if I were being very obviously stalked through dark streets by a large man, I'd consider that violence against my person was imminent. If I were scared enough for long enough, I might even turn and lash out at the person following me.
Zimmerman's continued following of Martin, after being instructed by the 911 respondent to stop doing so, leads to the question of whether he had the right to be where he was. It was clearly not his business to follow Martin. He's not a policeman or any kind of law enforcement person, so he wasn't doing his job. He had done his duty by reporting his suspicions.
Personally, I have come to think that Martin initiated the violence. But like all of us, I am just going on what I read and on what physical evidence we are privvy to. For example, the police found his earbuds in his pocket, and he had been on the phone for 1 1/2 hour straight. I think he put them away in preparation for jumping Zimmerman. If Zimmerman came at him, he would not have had time to put them in his pocket.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Spartana, why in the world could 6 women not deliver an impartial jury decision? (Although they might tend to side with Zimmerman, given the size difference in the two men and the physical evidence of the broken nose and the bashed in head.
Speculation is now moot, the verdict is in...Not Guilty